Dear authors,

I agree with all referees that the paper is well written and generally easy to read. While two referees are very positive, referee 1 posted questions by the novelty of this manuscript. You have already highlighted these novelties in your reply to referee 1, and I advice you to highlight this in the revised version as well (somewhere at the end of the introduction?)

The opinions about the usefulness of section 4.3 differed between the referees, so I leave it to the authors if they want to keep in in. (Personally I think it is usefull - especially if you are able to clarify it a bit more. Maybe you can also refer back to this part in the conclusion sections as well).

Due to the doubt about the novelty by referee 1, I will send the revised version out referee 1 again.

With kind regards,

Martijn Westhoff

Dear authors,

I'm happy to tell you that your manuscript is accepted for publication. When preparing your production files, please take the Referee's comment about the y-labels of the figures into account.

With kind regards,

Martijn Westhoff